Avatar

The Travelling Taxonomist

@markscherz / markscherz.tumblr.com

Dr Mark D. Scherz Curator of Herpetology at the Natural History Museum of Denmark. I work mostly on the reptiles and amphibians of Madagascar. Also a photographer and occasional poet. Sometimes I bake. My tumblr is concerned mainly with reptiles and amphibians, my research, evolution, biodiversity, systematics, and taxonomy, but I also try to keep things light-hearted. I am a huge fan of puns. My main website is at www.markscherz.com; go there for research updates, photo galleries, and other things.
Avatar

FAQ

I get a lot of asks on tumblr, and I of course cannot expect you to scroll through my erratic post history on tumblr before you ask anything (though you can browse my tag #Answers by Mark, if you want). So instead, I have pinned this post that has an FAQ, which you can refer to before submitting a question, to check if it has been asked before.

Avatar

I think I stumbled upon some kind of ichthyological forbidden knowledge. Opened up a book of names that were never meant to be read.

You've probably heard of "can-opener smoothdream", right? It's practically a meme by now.

But the thing is, it's a deep-sea fish. And deep-sea fish have historically not had English names because nobody drops them into the conversation over a hot cuppa. Sure, there's generic stuff like hatchetfish and barreleye, but when you want to refer to the actual fish you're probably saying such euphonious phrases as Diretmus argenteus, Sternoptyx diaphana, or maybe even Opisthoproctus soleatus.

So whence "can-opener smoothdream"? Certainly no non-ichthyologist has ever used that name. It's not even a direct translation of the scientific name Chaenophryne longiceps - that would be "long-headed gape-toad". Which to me is even cooler than "can-opener smoothdream".

But I digress. The "dream" bit comes from the anglerfish family Oneirodidae, from oneiros, "dream", because those marvelous fishes look like they came out of a dream (Pietsch, 2009).

Note that Pietsch (2009), more or less the anglerfish bible, uses English names at the genus level only. So Chaenophryne is the smoothhead dreamers genus but no mention is made of "can-opener smoothdreams". So no luck there.

Wikipedia, root cause of a lot of misinformation, has this to say.

"Longhead dreamer" is a far more accurate name. And in fact, despite Wikipedia prioritizing "can-opener smoothdream" (because it's funny?), the links listed use "longhead dreamer" and "smoothhead dreamer" as the name and "can-opener smoothdream" as an alternative.

So. Again. Where did "can-opener smoothdream" come from?

The answer, as it turns out, lies with McAllister (1990).

In the book A List of the Fishes of Canada, ichthyologist D. E. McAllister sought out to list every single fish known to Canadian waters, providing both an English and a French name.

And when there wasn't an English name, like for most deep-sea fishes, he arbitrarily gave them a name. And his names "differ in many instances from the widely accepted names" (Holm, 1998)

This had varying results. This is his name for one of the netdevil anglerfishes.

The humpback anglerfish or blackdevil anglerfish becomes a werewolf (????).

This one is just confusing.

The white-spotted lanternfish or Rafinesque's lanternfish instead becomes...

And most embarrassingly, the Mediterranean spiderfish gets saddled with something that "violates the tenet of good taste" (Holm, 1998).

This then is the original source of "can-opener smoothdream". It was invented by an ichthyologist in 1990, and has seen little to no use outside of how bizarre the name is.

Maybe McAllister's goofier names will catch on. Who knows? They certainly aren't very popular in the scientific community though.

References

Holm, E. (1998) Encyclopedia of Canadian Fishes (review). The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 112, p. 174-175.

McAllister, D. E. (1990) A List of the Fishes of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa.

Pietsch, T. W. (2009) Oceanic Anglerfishes: Extraordinary Diversity in the Deep Sea. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Avatar
markscherz

This is the hot tumblr discourse that I’m here for.

Avatar
Avatar
penny-anna

Day 2 in new flat. I am going to attempt to use... The contraption

Contraption lowered. This is the scariest part of contraption usage, once you release it the drop is very fast

Contraption loaded!! Here goes

Successful contrapting!!

important thing to note about the contraption: i have no idea how old it is. building is 19th century and it could potentially be an original feature. however you can buy ones that look just like it online so who knows. i know the previous owner didn't install it.

anyway reviews are in:

we like the contraption :)

Avatar
markscherz

I once lived in a flat in Edinburgh that had such a contraption. Trouble was that the air was so damp to begin with that nothing would ever dry. I think I slept in damp sheets for a year.

Avatar

i know youre more of a herpetologist but i saw your post with the skeleton frog and here are my favorite halloween skeletons

Avatar

I really do not understand the appeal of these. Clearly the inaccuracy is intentional, and to the point where it is somehow tongue-in-cheek; nobody who thinks for more than two seconds could think that rabbit ears are included in their skeletons. But buying them? Bizarre.

Avatar
reblogged

Okay so in my Computer Applications class we learned about conditional formatting in Excel, where you can change the color of a cell by inputting certain values.

We're supposed to use it to model heat gradients in metals, but I found a better application:

FROG ART

Avatar
markscherz

Very worthwhile application of this setting.

Avatar

I got curious thinking about some things, so what animal have you found with the most memorable (or weird) blood? Kind of an odd question, but I'm curious.

Avatar

There are a bunch of frogs and also several lizards that have green blood, full of biliveridin, a waste product produced in the liver that is foul tasting to predators, and may also have immune benefits to the animals. So that’s fun! Boophis septentrionalis from Madagascar has this. Here’s one with a broken leg (actually missing a foot) where the whole limb has gone blue:

(Sorry for the weird photo frame, this is from Ye Olde Internet)

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
markscherz

Are there any really stupid science hills you'll die on for no reason? I do NOT mean "this is a serious and oft-misunderstood issue on which I disagree with my peers," I mean the "hotdogs are tacos" of your field.

Avatar

So basically all of ‘higher taxonomy’ (every taxonomic rank above species) is just made up, wibbly wobbly, and incomparable. Arguments about what high ranks ‘should’ contain or mean are pointless, because the system is just deeply flawed.

But damn if I won’t write pages and pages of papers about how much it matters that higher taxonomic ranks are *useful*, and whinge loudly about the fact that many higher taxa are overly lumped to the point of insanity. See: genus Anolis == family Anoliidae. How can that possibly make sense? The people who argue in favour of this taxonomy seem to just be disinclined to learn which species belongs to which genus, and want to keep it simple by throwing them all in the same bin. To which I respond ‘okay, let’s just call every genus and family the same thing. Then you can’t possibly get it wrong. And also, thbbbbbt’.

Avatar

So it's a wastebasket taxon, then?

In essence, yes.

Avatar

Are there any really stupid science hills you'll die on for no reason? I do NOT mean "this is a serious and oft-misunderstood issue on which I disagree with my peers," I mean the "hotdogs are tacos" of your field.

Avatar

So basically all of ‘higher taxonomy’ (every taxonomic rank above species) is just made up, wibbly wobbly, and incomparable. Arguments about what high ranks ‘should’ contain or mean are pointless, because the system is just deeply flawed.

But damn if I won’t write pages and pages of papers about how much it matters that higher taxonomic ranks are *useful*, and whinge loudly about the fact that many higher taxa are overly lumped to the point of insanity. See: genus Anolis == family Anoliidae. How can that possibly make sense? The people who argue in favour of this taxonomy seem to just be disinclined to learn which species belongs to which genus, and want to keep it simple by throwing them all in the same bin. To which I respond ‘okay, let’s just call every genus and family the same thing. Then you can’t possibly get it wrong. And also, thbbbbbt’.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.